Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure
  • Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:20:43 +0100

Sorry, that should be Genesis 10:1b. Sorry for the confusion it caused.

James Christian




Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

James:
Right now I don’t see you as a serious scholar, rather you keep repeating
the same claims without substantiating them.

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:51 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Hi,

this was your answer to the detailed breakdown of the structure of Genesis
5 that I gave you? I've started to notice that this is characteristic. When
you are given major issues that need to be dealt with in order for your
theory to be accepted you completely sidestep them as if they weren't there
or were never even raised.

Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

James:
Why are you putting so much effort into trying to disprove this
understanding of the text?


I'm not putting effort into disproving anything. On the contrary, your
theory could only be given recognition if it proved to stand up to this kind
of test. Evidently it doesn't and that's why you feel the need to completely
sidestep the major issues being raised e.g.

To what context is the 'them' of Genesis 5:1b referring if Genesis 5:1a is
a colophon of the preceeding document?


There is no “them” in Genesis 5:1b.


You have also been given an outline of the literary structure of Genesis 5
that both works and stands in contradiction to your theory. Your refusal to
face these issues head on does not do anything to give more credence to your
theory. It just makes it look like something you have clearly already
decided on and are not willing engage fully in an objective consideration
of.

James Christian

P.S. I find most of what you have outlined below irrelevant as I have
already made it clear that I agree that 'generations' doesn't work. The
point is that 'document' doesn't either and you have been asked to consider
the third possibility 'history' which works for all and has none of the
problems associated with 'generations' or 'document'. Please, if you are
going to continue, stay focused on this distinction otherwise we are both
talking to straw men.


From a lexicographic standpoint, I find “history” to be problematic. That’s
why I don’t consider it. Consider again the following, and the meaning given
in a previous message.



One way I deal with lexicography is to start with the easy cases, then go
to
the hard ones. If the easy cases give one clear meaning, then I make the
assumption that the harder to understand verses use the same meaning.
There
are times where that practice has allowed me to recognize idioms, literary
conventions and sometimes just make sense of a verse.

Now it is clear from Genesis 2:4, 6:9a and 37:2a that this does not refer
to
generations. This is an easy case. Further, there is a disconnect between
Genesis 37:2a and what follows. Another easy case. Not so easy, but still
noticeable, there is a disconnect, like a full pause, between Genesis 6:9a
and 6:9b, and Genesis 2:4 contextually and stylistically belongs to
chapter
one. Then I look at harder to recognize verses, such as Genesis 5:1–2, and
see that they can be understood as a closing title and authorship claim.
None necessarily contradict that claim.

In order to disprove that these are following title and authorship claims,
you need to show that the only way to read the formula is as a preceding
title. I don’t think you can.


You didn’t answer my final paragraph above.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page